Excuse the pretty much off-topic, but hey it's from the article:
quote: In fact, we still have an MSI based 760 MPX system running in the labs today as a media back-up server.
Buggy as hell that AMD chipset, but at the time a nice low cost entry into dual core computing. I can only get mine stable when I run my RAID and Gbit cards in the 32bit/33Mhz slots, which is a real shame. Sound drivers are also fun. How is yours set-up? This would also be a good place to post it if somebody feels like sharing: http://www.2cpu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46394">http://www.2cpu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46394. Cheers.
1) How do they accomplish having HDCP support for both dvi and hdmi given that they're on independent display controllers? My understanding was that seperate crypto ROMs were required for each controller/output. Simple answer would be that they indeed have 2 sets of keys but I assume this isn't the case given that they only let you use HDCP on one digital output at a time. So how does that all work?
2) How is vga implemented in the display controllers? 1=HDMI 2=DVI-I(hence dvi or vga) or some other configuration?
3) In a related point (upcoming mobile version of chipset) What connection do laptops use internally for their screens? I've asked this question on a few other sites but never got an answer. Surely someone must know? The reason I ask is I'm interested in getting a laptop in future which supports both hdcp for the laptop screen but also via an external digital connection to a larger display.
Probably won't get a set up with everything shown in the schematic at the first of the article.
Remembering when AMD used to have their ''own''chipsets...is this chipset going to be something wich is 'solely ' AMD marketed. Or will there be derivitives from MicroStar,Asus,Gigabyte etc ? Will ALL the chipsets featured in this article considering AMD/ATI be only that single vendor representation ?
I'll be glued to the articles as they transpose. So these chipsets are actually Blue-ray,HD-DVD ''ready''chipsets. Big hmmm there. Personally I dont think that anything less than that in inches bigger than 32 to be HD. So the HDCP stuff,etc,seems to have a bi-product of selling the new disks from the copyright world.Implementing their schemes on less that what would be considered HD.(another topic of course).I think HD should be considered in inches no matter the parameters of pixel count. Or frame/..strength.
Move it on over for the space necesary for HD. Minus the screen size,and video strength....I'd enjoy the technology for its mediums strength of storage space. Another emplementation facet,creeping up into the computerdom spectrum.
The chipset as displayed are all chipset features, no extra chips needed. Not providing the necessary connectors would be extremely stupid.
In inches? Someone trying to compensate? ;p
You can have a 50" plasma with 800xWhatever resolution all you want, it will never be HD or come close to portray the details a 24" 1920x1200 LCD can. "High definition" defines how much information you display, how sharp the picture is, not on how big a surface you're displaying that information. If that's what it meant, "HD" has been available for decades, thanks to projectors.
So if you really only think in inches, you shouldn't be bothering with the new formats, just watch VHS or videocd's (300xblabla mpeg) in your big ass projector room. Call your friends and tell them what a superHD setup you have. Never mind the blur and color bleeding, look how big it is!
Right now,I have a max.capable computer screen of 1280x1240 using a vga connection.With a 19" monitor.
The definition is not as much a credential as the media,or medium of wich you would wish to display . DVDs right now,are not actually HD. Unlike DVDs though Blue-ray,and HD-DVD require credentials of HDCP for the video card,and display in order to use the media.
You could go and use the newer large storage media for something other than protected content.That perhaps you created yourself,as in HD.Utilizing the criteria for 'high-definition'detailed as x(pixel)by x(pixel).I can get everything I need out of copyprotected media on a 19"screen.Or 24"for that matter.
I dont see the agony of accomadating the studios on the mere relevance of x(pixel)by x(pixel) when the reality is anything other than a large screen ,is defined by if it has HDCP or not. Im happy that there is a difference. Home made HD does not need the criteria of credential in order to be such a thing. If it is defined by x(pixel)by x(pixel) in wich video cards are capable of,and any screen size will do,more power to the smaller screens.
Still....the new HDCP content is a 'good thing'. It just to me doesn't have relevence on small screens. HD is not about small screens and HDCP. Its about having an HD movie.
I am definitely waiting for the bleeding to stop. More power to you at your desktop of course.
HDCP was about the movie studios attempting to stop piracy. Of course now that AACS has been broken (multiple times in multiple ways) HDCP will just be a big pain in the rear and still not stop piracy.
1.) Is it really HDMI 1.3 that's supported, or 1.2? Everyone seems to be saying something different.
2.) Is HDCP <i>always</i> enabled over DVI and HDMI, or, do the motherboard manufacturers have to make it so? I'm just wondering if a onboard DVI port motherboard is bought based on this chipset, if it's a guaranteed that DVI port is HDCP enabled.
3.) Can anyone from AMD or the motherboard manufacturers give us a more than off the cuff indication if these 690G/690V boards will support the new incoming AM2+ CPU's in the coming months?
1) I see no reason for ANYBODY launching new GPU solution with just 1.3 support, it would be stupid beyond comprehension
2) HDCP means the board must have code license. Threfore it is up to the board maker to decide whether he would pay for the license or pass the savings to the consumers who do not need HDCP (i.e. bussiness users).
3) All AM2+ CPU's will be compatible with all AM2 boards. Only limitation beeing with special low-TDP SFF boards. AMD has stated countless times.
1.) Well, I see no reason on why this chipset took months longer to get out than it did, but there you go. Trust me, with the bungles (only way to look at the slip the AMD version of this chipset has encountered) that ATI/AMD has let happen, HDMI 1.2 or even 1.1 wouldn't surprise me.
2.) That's why I wanted confirmation from AnandTech on this, because board makes are notoriously bad about being specific or less than forthright about things like this.
3.) When AnandTech says they confirmed with AMD that AM2+ CPU's will work in all 690G/690V motherboards, then I'll believe it. Until then, it's a popular rumor.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
14 Comments
Back to Article
phusg - Thursday, March 1, 2007 - link
Excuse the pretty much off-topic, but hey it's from the article:Buggy as hell that AMD chipset, but at the time a nice low cost entry into dual core computing. I can only get mine stable when I run my RAID and Gbit cards in the 32bit/33Mhz slots, which is a real shame. Sound drivers are also fun. How is yours set-up? This would also be a good place to post it if somebody feels like sharing: http://www.2cpu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46394">http://www.2cpu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46394. Cheers.
Renoir - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
1) How do they accomplish having HDCP support for both dvi and hdmi given that they're on independent display controllers? My understanding was that seperate crypto ROMs were required for each controller/output. Simple answer would be that they indeed have 2 sets of keys but I assume this isn't the case given that they only let you use HDCP on one digital output at a time. So how does that all work?2) How is vga implemented in the display controllers? 1=HDMI 2=DVI-I(hence dvi or vga) or some other configuration?
3) In a related point (upcoming mobile version of chipset) What connection do laptops use internally for their screens? I've asked this question on a few other sites but never got an answer. Surely someone must know? The reason I ask is I'm interested in getting a laptop in future which supports both hdcp for the laptop screen but also via an external digital connection to a larger display.
Sorry for the long post
A5 - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
On page 2, in the audio section, you wrote:"of the HDMI audio capabilities but have tested our 5.1 setup with output set to 24-bits at 48,000MHz."
Should be 48KHz or 48,000Hz, not 48GHz :)
JarredWalton - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
We have very high quality audio. It's under tight wraps, though, so you didn't hear about it here! (*Unh... sorry*)Tujan - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
to see how this chipset is implemented.Probably won't get a set up with everything shown in the schematic at the first of the article.
Remembering when AMD used to have their ''own''chipsets...is this chipset going to be something wich is 'solely ' AMD marketed. Or will there be derivitives from MicroStar,Asus,Gigabyte etc ? Will ALL the chipsets featured in this article considering AMD/ATI be only that single vendor representation ?
I'll be glued to the articles as they transpose. So these chipsets are actually Blue-ray,HD-DVD ''ready''chipsets. Big hmmm there. Personally I dont think that anything less than that in inches bigger than 32 to be HD. So the HDCP stuff,etc,seems to have a bi-product of selling the new disks from the copyright world.Implementing their schemes on less that what would be considered HD.(another topic of course).I think HD should be considered in inches no matter the parameters of pixel count. Or frame/..strength.
Move it on over for the space necesary for HD. Minus the screen size,and video strength....I'd enjoy the technology for its mediums strength of storage space. Another emplementation facet,creeping up into the computerdom spectrum.
Spoelie - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
The chipset as displayed are all chipset features, no extra chips needed. Not providing the necessary connectors would be extremely stupid.In inches? Someone trying to compensate? ;p
You can have a 50" plasma with 800xWhatever resolution all you want, it will never be HD or come close to portray the details a 24" 1920x1200 LCD can. "High definition" defines how much information you display, how sharp the picture is, not on how big a surface you're displaying that information. If that's what it meant, "HD" has been available for decades, thanks to projectors.
So if you really only think in inches, you shouldn't be bothering with the new formats, just watch VHS or videocd's (300xblabla mpeg) in your big ass projector room. Call your friends and tell them what a superHD setup you have. Never mind the blur and color bleeding, look how big it is!
Tujan - Thursday, March 1, 2007 - link
Right now,I have a max.capable computer screen of 1280x1240 using a vga connection.With a 19" monitor.The definition is not as much a credential as the media,or medium of wich you would wish to display . DVDs right now,are not actually HD. Unlike DVDs though Blue-ray,and HD-DVD require credentials of HDCP for the video card,and display in order to use the media.
You could go and use the newer large storage media for something other than protected content.That perhaps you created yourself,as in HD.Utilizing the criteria for 'high-definition'detailed as x(pixel)by x(pixel).I can get everything I need out of copyprotected media on a 19"screen.Or 24"for that matter.
I dont see the agony of accomadating the studios on the mere relevance of x(pixel)by x(pixel) when the reality is anything other than a large screen ,is defined by if it has HDCP or not. Im happy that there is a difference. Home made HD does not need the criteria of credential in order to be such a thing. If it is defined by x(pixel)by x(pixel) in wich video cards are capable of,and any screen size will do,more power to the smaller screens.
Still....the new HDCP content is a 'good thing'. It just to me doesn't have relevence on small screens. HD is not about small screens and HDCP. Its about having an HD movie.
I am definitely waiting for the bleeding to stop. More power to you at your desktop of course.
strikeback03 - Thursday, March 1, 2007 - link
HDCP was about the movie studios attempting to stop piracy. Of course now that AACS has been broken (multiple times in multiple ways) HDCP will just be a big pain in the rear and still not stop piracy.OrSin - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
I going to just say what?I missed about half of what he was saying.
sprockkets - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
Having 6 SATA ports is nice, but Raid 5 is all software done anyhow with nVidia chipsets, so what is the big deal?What is the max resolution over DVI/HDMI? I know the 6150s does not have the same resolution over DVI as it does the VGA port.
mino - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
Single link (165MHz) DVI is limited to 1920x1200@60HZ. IT is caused by the bandwith limitation of the DVI standard.Shame they did not include dual-link DVI interface :(.
chucky2 - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
2 Questions to start:1.) Is it really HDMI 1.3 that's supported, or 1.2? Everyone seems to be saying something different.
2.) Is HDCP <i>always</i> enabled over DVI and HDMI, or, do the motherboard manufacturers have to make it so? I'm just wondering if a onboard DVI port motherboard is bought based on this chipset, if it's a guaranteed that DVI port is HDCP enabled.
3.) Can anyone from AMD or the motherboard manufacturers give us a more than off the cuff indication if these 690G/690V boards will support the new incoming AM2+ CPU's in the coming months?
Thanks!
Chuck
mino - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
1) I see no reason for ANYBODY launching new GPU solution with just 1.3 support, it would be stupid beyond comprehension2) HDCP means the board must have code license. Threfore it is up to the board maker to decide whether he would pay for the license or pass the savings to the consumers who do not need HDCP (i.e. bussiness users).
3) All AM2+ CPU's will be compatible with all AM2 boards. Only limitation beeing with special low-TDP SFF boards. AMD has stated countless times.
chucky2 - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - link
1.) Well, I see no reason on why this chipset took months longer to get out than it did, but there you go. Trust me, with the bungles (only way to look at the slip the AMD version of this chipset has encountered) that ATI/AMD has let happen, HDMI 1.2 or even 1.1 wouldn't surprise me.2.) That's why I wanted confirmation from AnandTech on this, because board makes are notoriously bad about being specific or less than forthright about things like this.
3.) When AnandTech says they confirmed with AMD that AM2+ CPU's will work in all 690G/690V motherboards, then I'll believe it. Until then, it's a popular rumor.
Chuck